Not as sharp as the newer version or other f/2.8 zooms, CA, distortion, AF can be hit and miss, vignetting

Overall, this is a pretty good lens. Sharpness wide open isn't the greatest, especially in the corners. It takes a couple of stops for it to sharpen up across the frame (IE-extreme corners). There is noticeable CA, but is easily removed in post.

Colors and contrast are good and match the other L lenses like the 24-70L and the 70-200L. Flare is handled pretty well, similar to the 24-70L Mark 1.

Vignetting is heavy, and is still present at 16mm @ f/8, and is pretty bad wide open.

Build quality is pretty great-although a little plasticy feeling, and the lens is weather sealed, which is always nice.

AF is relatively quick and silent, but can be hit and miss (on both 1D and 5D series cameras). When in focus, things look great, but when out, it's bad.

Price is great as now there is the second version, the new 16-35mm f/4, and the 11-24mm f/4, which have all helped to push the price of the original 16-35mm f/2.8 down quite a bit.

None that you can really complain about with a super wide angle lens. Lightroom fixes most issues.

Having 2.8 helps a lot in low light. This is my main commercial lens for buildings. Awesome lens and can be had for around $900 used.

Oct 4, 2013

raterOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 26, 2013Location: United StatesPosts: 33

Review Date: Apr 17, 2013

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7

†

Pros:

Wide and good quality lens

Cons:

A bit soft and prone to flare.

This was my first L lens and I was very happy with it. Actually, during 7 years was one of my most used lenses on a cropped sensor camera.

Now that I have moved to full frame camera, the corners were a bit too soft for my taste so I sold it, but I already miss this nice L lens.

Apr 17, 2013

Kevin ShermanOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 11, 2006Location: United StatesPosts: 1045

Review Date: Jan 19, 2012

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 9

†

Pros:

Wide wide wide. Sharp. Fast.

Cons:

Lots of distortion, good amount of vignetting.

Great value, the version II brought the price of the older version down. Was nice on the APS-C 1.6x crop 7D. Pretty sharp, shot mostly at f2.8 unless I was doing some architectural work. Fast, wide, creates some fun images.

This is one of my favourite lenses. Build quality is very good, along with IQ and versatility.

I've recently sold this lens as I needed the funds for dedicated portrait lens due to my changing photographic style. It was such a hard decision, and do miss it for some of it's unique qualities. I will defiantly buy this or the mark 2 version again when funds allow!

I used this lens on a full frame body, mainly for landscapes and photojournalist work. 16mm on a FF body is very wide and IMO one of it's best qualities. Some of the perspectives that you can capture are amazing and set it apart from the 24mm range of lenses.

Sharpness and contrast are great, especially when stepped down past 5.6. At lower apertures especially at 2.8 the outer sharpness, particulary in the corners is soft and a fair bit of detail is lost because of this.

This is not really a major negative point. I shoot alot of low light street photography so I often use 2.8. As long as your subjects are sharp the soft edges actualy enhance the image. Only dedicated landscape photographers may find this an issue.

This lens is one of the lightest L lenses that I've used. Really portable and great with a 5D or 1D body.

On the used Market you can pick these up relatively cheap and are great value for money. I highly recommend this lens.

Alex

Jun 11, 2011

krodgerOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 12, 2011Location: CanadaPosts: 0

Review Date: May 17, 2011

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9

†

Pros:

Quick, accurate auto-focus, good contrast, good colour, nice bokeh.

Cons:

This was my first Canon "L" series lens. I am using it now on a Canon 60D, with an APS-C sensor. So far, I am very pleased with the results. I can't wait to try it on a camera with a full frame sensor. It blows the other lenses I have out of the water, and this is now the lens I use most frequently. I love the sharpness and quickness of the autofocus. It is very good in low light, and the lack of IS is not missed. I am not an expert when it comes down to the technicalities of lenses, but there is some fuzziness in the corners apparent at large apertures. At the 16mm range of the lens, there is a lot of distortion, but this shows up in my other lens as well. I had compared this lens to the EF 35mm f/1.4 L lens, and thought I would get more use out of this lens. I am happy with my decision.

The manual for the lens specifies that it needs a filter to completely seal the lens. These tend to be expensive, but what do you expect when you need a 82mm filter size.

May 17, 2011

Todd KlassyOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 27, 2010Location: United StatesPosts: 290

Review Date: Sep 27, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9

†

Pros:

Overall very sharp, great color rendition, & super fast--everything you would expect from a L-lens.

Cons:

Corners are a little soft when used wide open (f/2.8), especially on extra large sensors (5D Mark II--but not so bad on 5D Mark I).

Overall a very good lens--my first L lens, which I have now owned for approximately than five years. I chose this lens because of its focal length range, maximum aperture, and focal length. I also like the fact that it uses a 77mm threaded filter.

Images are crisp and sharp, and colors are always wonderful. At 35mm is doesn't perform as well as the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, but you wouldn't expect it too since it is a zoom lens. Its performance at 35mm is still very good. Where it really shines is from 16mm to 24mm. It can get a little soft in the corners when shooting at f/2.8--especially at 16mm--when used on a full-frame camera with lots of megapixels (think 5D2).

I really like this lens and expect it to be part of my camera bag for a good while to come.

I bought this lens used, and deliberately over the mkII version for the 77mm filter size.

I already had the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8, so I liked the idea of having all of the lens be able to share the same Cokin mount. Combined with the price I paid for a mint condition used copy of this lens and that sealed the deal for me.

I've used this lens a lot, handheld indoors with my kids and for shooting video on the 5D2 and for some awesome perspective shots.

I used to own the 10-22mm Canon on my 40D this lens, while a lot heavier, feels more like it is built like a tank.

Apr 26, 2010

Ric444OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 10, 2010Location: CanadaPosts: 0

Review Date: Apr 10, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10

†

Pros:

Very sharp at f2.8, Very nice tones and contrats

Cons:

None so far

What an amazing lens!
I own several L lenses, including the 24-70L, 135L, 70-200L.
However, this lens is becoming my favourite very quickly for the the following reasons:
- the 24-70 is too heavy for a walk-around lens,
- the 135L is too narrow and good for portraits mostly,
- the 70-200L also too narrow for most scenarios.

The 16-35 is just perfect size and weight for all day shooting at museams and streets.

I picked up this lens used for a very good price and in a like new condition. I keep this lens in my 5DII most of the time.

The sharpness is excellent, except a the edges at f2.8. But not a problem given that I have seen really bad wide angle lenses: I own a Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 as well. I won't say anything about it, other than the darkness make one appreciate the light even more.

Tones and contrast are excellent as well.

Apr 10, 2010

zolbsOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: May 3, 2009Location: ChinaPosts: 19

Review Date: Jan 12, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated

†

Pros:

Solid build, extra-wide, 2.8

Cons:

Is it worth all the cash?

I bought this lens about 3 months ago. To do so, I swapped some lenses around, including a 17-40.

The 16-35 has been great. Very pleased.

But at the same time, I just reviewed a number of my best shots from the 16-35 and the previous 17-40. Honestly, I can hardly tell any difference. Obviously it is a plus to have the extra two stops on the 16-35, particularly in low-light.. But I really question if it was worth the added cash?

slightly soft corners (although I havent compared this to the mk2 version) nothing that has ever actually ruined a photograph for me, just something I noticed once or twice.

I have had this lens for a while now. I got it second hand and I love it. I tend to use it quite often these days since I have been shooting a lot of hardcore shows.

I upgraded from the 17-40 f4 and I didnt think that extra 1mm would make that much of a difference but it really does. Quite often I find myself zooming it in ever so slightly so its not right at 16mm. It is nice to know that 16mm is available if I need it though.

I have found a few different times that the corners were a bit soft which is something I had read about this lens before I bought it. I havent lost any shots because of this so it really doesnt bother me that much.

The best part about this lens is that you can find it used for fairly cheap since the mk2 version has been out for a while now. I picked mine up for around $800CDN which is an amazing price.

Jan 27, 2009

LennartWOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 6, 2008Location: GermanyPosts: 90

Review Date: Jan 15, 2009

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 8

†

Pros:

Light, Small, Fast, F2.8

Cons:

Tends to have soft corners

As it is always: you get what you pay for.

And if you buy this lens, you know what you want and you get what you want.

On a documentary, this is the lens I would use straight out of the bag.
It is good for sports because it has the two key facts: F2.8 and a fast focus.

The IQ @ F2.8 is good between 20-35 and OK at 16.
Stopping down to F3.2 or F3.5 is absolutely usable for my needs and for the circumstances I am working under (bad light/no light).

If you want the perfect WW zoom, get a Nikon but this is by far the best WW zoom you can get for under 900$.

Jan 15, 2009

terminatorOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 28, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 281

Review Date: Nov 20, 2008

Recommend? no |
Price paid: $635.00
| Rating: 7

†

Pros:

build, 16mm, size, f/2.8

Cons:

soft at 35mm

My copy is second hand. I noticed immediately that it is very soft at 35mm - softer than any of my other L zooms such as 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200L f/2.8 IS. Stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 does not help much.

Other than the softness, everything else about this lens is positive even though I am not a fan of wide angle.

I am thinking about upgrade to Mark II, but its 82mm and price tag really piss me off.

Nov 20, 2008

SR777OfflineImage Upload: On

Registered: Oct 9, 2008Location: AustraliaPosts: 499

Review Date: Nov 8, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 9

†

Pros:

Build quality, colour rendition, sharpness

Cons:

None

I bought this lens 2.5 years ago as a standard walk-around zoom for the 20D (1.6 crop). Since then, this lens is also my walk-around for the 1D2 (1.3 crop). The lens is sharp wide open (2.8) and gets much, much sharper when stopped down 1/3 stop. The colour rendition is great. The lens feels solid. I haven't found any reason to replace this with the 16-35 II.